Knox convicted for second time

[Darth Yan]

That's actually fairly common. Sometimes people just "know" that the suspect is guilty and will stick to that belief; it's not even necessarily malice, it's just tunnel vision and the fact that you're so utterly sure that you're right that you'll ignore evidence to the contrary. It's appeared in many US cases (i.e. The West memphis three, where even though the primary source of evidence (a confession from a mentally handicapped teenager) was unreliable (simply because a.) it's highly probably the police pressured him and b.) he was so broken down that he would have honestly believed that he could have done it if he was suggestible enough) and that the stepfather of one of the victims was found to have left dna evidence in the knots of one of the laces used to bind the victims, not to mention no real alibi for the time, the state still refuses to acknowledge a mistake or to investigate the stepfather.) but there's no reason why such a thing can't have occurred in Europe. They might not be deliberately trying to screw someone over, but that doesn't mean they can't have tunnel vision or get so focused on their belief that a certain individual might have done it that they completely ignore any evidence that disproves it.

The Satanic Ritual also struck me as a little silly (coincidentally that was also the suspected motive of the WM3). It's just……..really?

[Kitsune]

http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organi ... abella.pdf
Looks like Italian law is a hybrid of US and European law.
Now, I have to say that there is one thing I like about Italian law compared to US law
That is that Italian law, the judge / jury has to write on exactly why they decided for guilt or innocence.
Makes sure that it can be closely examined.

[Simon_Jester]

And if the bullshit conspiracy theories refuse to die, then I will simply lock this thread and any other subsequent threads related to the Knox affair. Simply because it is not worth dealing with all the ignorant asshattery.

Could you expand on what you mean by "bullshit conspiracy theories?" That's kind of vague.

Read this, it has some interesting info like:

We won't know exactly what the Florence court's reasons were until it releases its written "motivazioni" – or explanation – and it does not have to do that for another 90 days. Certainly, to long-term observers, there was no sense that the new appeal moved the case on dramatically. The debate centred largely on by-now-familiar arguments which pit two starkly different versions of events against each other. The court had been instructed by the judges in the cassation court to consider the evidence as a whole, rather than in the "fragmented" way the Perugia appeals court had done. It also said it should pay heed to the sentence of Rudy Guede, the young man in jail for the murder, which found he did not act alone, and encouraged the court to consider Knox's false naming of Patrick Lumumba in connection with the murder charge, rather than separating it out. (She says she only named him due to intense police pressure.)

No written opinion yet you already have formed an opinion. On what basis?

But in a country with a more 'modern' approach, we have people being put onto appeals when they're found innocent by the lower court. This creates a whole separate problem because it prevents those citizens from ever stabilizing their lives, because being found innocent is no guarantee you won't have another round of high-profile murder trial a few days later.

Such inconvenience is a small price to pay for a system which actively works to correct its mistakes and anybody "harassed" that way gets damages anyhow.

So... if Amanda Knox is found innocent she will be compensated for having spent four years in jail over this?* And for any expenses associated with having to defend herself three times on a charge she should have been exonerated of after being tried once?

If she gets found innocent, I hope she gets interest for the extra years of delay created by the need to refight this legal battle after the Italian Supreme Court overturned her appeal.

We place a higher burden on the prosecution because (at least in anything like the US system) it operates with the full resources of the state, whereas the defense has somewhat less in the way of resources and control over the tone of the investigation.

Which is not the case in Europe as the function of prosecutors are different.

...Is the function of the prosecutor NOT to prosecute? Or is the verb 'to prosecute' not being used in the way I'm familiar with? I thought the job of a prosecutor was to present the state's case against the defendant, and to attempt to persuade the court(s) that the defendant is guilty.

Typically, such a prosecutor is employed by an organized office with strong ties to law enforcement. Is this not so in Italy?

At some point the whole concept starts reminding me of Javert chasing a (productive, well-adjusted) citizen Jean Paul Jean.

And if you truly knew the work of Les Miserables you would not make such an ignorant statement. Read up on the situations of French law at the time and why Javert is chasing him.

He broke his parole agreement, yes? And, well, 'once a criminal, always a criminal?'

It's not that I don't understand why Javert is chasing Valjean. It's that as far as I am aware, the entire point of the story, or one of several points, is it's easy for legalistic pursuit of the suspected-guilty to tip over into state harassment of a decent person. Granted that in the case of Valjean, he at least DID commit the crimes he was being pursued for. There is still a parallel here. I can't imagine anyone saying that if I really understood Les Miserables I would not be so 'ignorant' as to think part of the point of the story was about overzealous attempts to uphold the law by committing wrongful acts and persecuting the good in the name of ferreting out criminals.

Will you please stop and actually think for a minute rather than just chuckling and saying "MURCA DUMB?"

You americans are not doing a great job from dissuading people from that notion in this thread.

In my case I have a very serious concern about whether or not it is just to allow prosecutors to appeal rulings against them, and when it is just to do so. But trying to get any information or explanations out of people who disagree with me about this is like pulling teeth. I would very much like to be enlightened about why Europe is somehow immune to the problems I describe- but I can't possibly be enlightened if all I hear is "you are ignorant, mistakes and abuses of the system don't happen in Italy."

And I can't help but suspect that people are dismissing my arguments with "you are ignorant" without adequately considering them- it seems like an easy mistake to make. Plenty of people on this forum have used "you don't understand" as a cover for "I have not adequately considered your argument" in the past. It's bad debating tactics but it happens.

Can we please have an actual conversation about the role of double jeopardy in a legal system, instead of "Europe doesn't have double jeopardy you ignorant slimeball" and "only a stupid American would think double jeopardy should apply to murder trials."

[Edi]

And if the bullshit conspiracy theories refuse to die, then I will simply lock this thread and any other subsequent threads related to the Knox affair. Simply because it is not worth dealing with all the ignorant asshattery.

Could you expand on what you mean by "bullshit conspiracy theories?" That's kind of vague.

Those would be the harping about how the Italian court system is out to get Knox, the malarkey about how the appeals process is stacking the deck against her and so forth. Most of the drivel spewed here from several of the American posters is not even worth responding to. It's fucking creationism level garbage.

So... if Amanda Knox is found innocent she will be compensated for having spent four years in jail over this?* And for any expenses associated with having to defend herself three times on a charge she should have been exonerated of after being tried once?

So despite repeated explanations that the Italian legal system is NOT the American legal system, you insist that it must and should work exactly like the American legal system? Were you born that fucking stupid or did you have to practice?

To recap:
* the original trial found her guilty
* the appeals process at the second level overturned that verdict
* the Supreme Court of Italy overturned the appeals court decision of acquittal and ordered a retrial
* the retrial resulted in a guilty verdict, but it can be appealed again to the appeals court level because it is a new trial

Furthermore, you seem to be saying that Knox should have been exonerated from the charges already in the first trial, based on what? Secrets the invisible polka-dot patterned unicorn whispered in your ear? The way it works in most European systems is trial at first level courts >> appeals court >> appeal to supreme court. At any level, the appeals process can result in the case sent back down for a retrial if there are gross errors of process. In which case it restarts at that level. Retrials are not ordered lightly.

If she gets found innocent, I hope she gets interest for the extra years of delay created by the need to refight this legal battle after the Italian Supreme Court overturned her appeal.

She'll receive reparations according to Italian law, if found innocent on further appeal. How much that is, I don't know, but having to refight the trials is not in itself a basis for compensation. The length of imprisonment is what determines that. Just as compensation for unjust imprisonment in (or by) the US governed by US laws (which do not seem to be worth a whole lot if you're a foreigner, especially with a Middle Eastern name, ref. Maher Arar).

...Is the function of the prosecutor NOT to prosecute? Or is the verb 'to prosecute' not being used in the way I'm familiar with? I thought the job of a prosecutor was to present the state's case against the defendant, and to attempt to persuade the court(s) that the defendant is guilty.

If you bothered to read my previous post, you would know that it is not only that. The prosecutor must, ex officio, meaning as part of his fucking job, take into account all factors that are in the defendant's favor. Not simply maximize chances of getting a conviction. No cherrypicking the evidence, no leaving anything out. Defense lawyers are under no such obligation to furnish the prosecutor with information unfavorable to their client's case (unless withholding that information itself would be criminal, and wrt that, statutes in the different countries may vary and the attorney-client privilege is also in play). So the deck is already somewhat stacked in the defendant's favor.

Typically, such a prosecutor is employed by an organized office with strong ties to law enforcement. Is this not so in Italy?

Yes. The prosecutor has state resources and ties to law enforcement at his disposal, which is why he has such an elevated duty to alaso bring forth ALL the evidence, per above. And which is also why if they get caught abusing their position and power, the state tends to bring the hammer down on them. Especially if there are significant international PR related issues in connection with a case.

In my case I have a very serious concern about whether or not it is just to allow prosecutors to appeal rulings against them, and when it is just to do so. But trying to get any information or explanations out of people who disagree with me about this is like pulling teeth. I would very much like to be enlightened about why Europe is somehow immune to the problems I describe- but I can't possibly be enlightened if all I hear is "you are ignorant, mistakes and abuses of the system don't happen in Italy."

Both sides are allowed to appeal up to the highest level (if they so choose) and there are numerous built in falisafes to ensure that the process is as fair as possible both ways. Remember that it is not just the defendant's right to justice in question, but also the right of the aggrieved party to get justice (whether the aggrieved party has suffered assault, armed robbery, embezzlement or the murder of a relative). Your hyper-focus on only the defendant seems like you have absolutely no problem shitting on the other side, simply because they are also seeking justice but doing so through the state apparatus. There is a very good reason why it is the state that handles that side rather than leaving the plaintiff to seek justice by whatever means they choose.

Can we please have an actual conversation about the role of double jeopardy in a legal system, instead of "Europe doesn't have double jeopardy you ignorant slimeball" and "only a stupid American would think double jeopardy should apply to murder trials."

The entire concept of double jeopardy being a get out of jail free card as long as you manage to hide enough evidence at your first trial is a pretty uniquely American concept that is held in utter contempt in most of Europe for a very good reason. There is no reason to have any discussion why European countries should adopt that idiocy. Or should we have "an actual conversation" about the merits of teaching flat earth geography in American schools?

[Thanas]

Is the function of the prosecutor NOT to prosecute? Or is the verb 'to prosecute' not being used in the way I'm familiar with? I thought the job of a prosecutor was to present the state's case against the defendant, and to attempt to persuade the court(s) that the defendant is guilty.

No, the job is to find out the truth and act accordingly. Edi dealt with the rest of your post but this stood out too strong to ignore. It has been explained to you, what, six times that the prosecutor is not only prosecuting and you are still not getting it?

At some point the whole concept starts reminding me of Javert chasing a (productive, well-adjusted) citizen Jean Paul Jean.

And if you truly knew the work of Les Miserables you would not make such an ignorant statement. Read up on the situations of French law at the time and why Javert is chasing him.

He broke his parole agreement, yes? And, well, 'once a criminal, always a criminal?'

It's not that I don't understand why Javert is chasing Valjean. It's that as far as I am aware, the entire point of the story, or one of several points, is it's easy for legalistic pursuit of the suspected-guilty to tip over into state harassment of a decent person. Granted that in the case of Valjean, he at least DID commit the crimes he was being pursued for. There is still a parallel here. I can't imagine anyone saying that if I really understood Les Miserables I would not be so 'ignorant' as to think part of the point of the story was about overzealous attempts to uphold the law by committing wrongful acts and persecuting the good in the name of ferreting out criminals.

Les Miserables was written as a specific point against a specific legal theory in place in France right now, that being a criminal means one could never lead a productive life again. That is why the story was written, to show how utter BS it was. And that is why it is not applicable here because the state is not out to prohibit Knox from ever becoming a successful member of society again.

[Flagg]

Les Miserables was written as a specific point against a specific legal theory in place in France right now, that being a criminal means one could never lead a productive life again. That is why the story was written, to show how utter BS it was. And that is why it is not applicable here because the state is not out to prohibit Knox from ever becoming a successful member of society again.

I find it hilarious that my fellow American would use Les Miserables when your description of its themes is pretty much the view of the American system for people convicted of a felony. Because when you get out of jail, you can't get any public assistance, it's almost impossible to get a job, you can't own a firearm (though that's a big duh), and you can't vote (in almost every state). The only way to get any of these rights back is to lead an exemplary life afterwards (or be rich) and get a pardon by the governor of your state. Sounds a lot like what you described.

[Simon_Jester]

Those would be the harping about how the Italian court system is out to get Knox, the malarkey about how the appeals process is stacking the deck against her and so forth. Most of the drivel spewed here from several of the American posters is not even worth responding to. It's fucking creationism level garbage.

Am I on this level in your opinion? If so, I will try to raise my standards; I am quite sincerely trying to have an intelligent conversation about this- about how the Italian system works, about what the good and bad aspects of the system are, and about how the concept of double jeopardy ties into our concept of justice, or even if it does so.

So... if Amanda Knox is found innocent she will be compensated for having spent four years in jail over this?* And for any expenses associated with having to defend herself three times on a charge she should have been exonerated of after being tried once?

So despite repeated explanations that the Italian legal system is NOT the American legal system, you insist that it must and should work exactly like the American legal system? Were you born that fucking stupid or did you have to practice?

I asked a simple question:

If, when the smoke clears, the final verdict on the Knox trial is that Knox is innocent... will Amanda be compensated for all the losses she has suffered due to the protracted trial? If not, for which losses will she be compensated?

Why does this prove me stupid?

To recap:
* the original trial found her guilty
* the appeals process at the second level overturned that verdict
* the Supreme Court of Italy overturned the appeals court decision of acquittal and ordered a retrial
* the retrial resulted in a guilty verdict, but it can be appealed again to the appeals court level because it is a new trial

Yes, I understand all these things. So potentially we're looking at a total of four trials, plus time taken for Supreme Court deliberations. I'm not even arguing (here) that this is too many, or anything of that nature. I am simply asking:

IF Knox is found innocent, and that is certainly possible, THEN will she be compensated for the large amount of time she's spent in prison?

IF she is found innocent, THEN will she be compensated for expenses associated with all the numerous trials? Some of them? None of them?

Furthermore, you seem to be saying that Knox should have been exonerated from the charges already in the first trial, based on what?...

If you are having difficulty understanding a question in the form of an "if... then..." statement, that is not my fault.

Secrets the invisible polka-dot patterned unicorn whispered in your ear? The way it works in most European systems is trial at first level courts >> appeals court >> appeal to supreme court. At any level, the appeals process can result in the case sent back down for a retrial if there are gross errors of process. In which case it restarts at that level. Retrials are not ordered lightly.

I hope not.

But given the absurdities alleged in the first trial (satanic plot) and the trouble I'm having pinning anyone down on what the second trial (the appeals court one) might have been, I am not entirely optimistic.

If she gets found innocent, I hope she gets interest for the extra years of delay created by the need to refight this legal battle after the Italian Supreme Court overturned her appeal.

She'll receive reparations according to Italian law, if found innocent on further appeal. How much that is, I don't know, but having to refight the trials is not in itself a basis for compensation. The length of imprisonment is what determines that.

OK. Gotcha. Thanks.

Now, I think that isn't fair. Especially in a case where there are numerous, repeated trials, or multiple trials being refought in the same court. The prosecution continues to get paid by the state to keep prosecuting these trials. Any travel, consultations, or other expenses they incur are presumably on the state budget. But even assuming the state is paying Knox's defense fees (I do not know), are they paying her ancillary expenses?

If not, it seems unfair to Knox that the trial sequence be protracted, because she's paying direct costs for the protracted defense, while only the Italian taxpayers are paying for the protracted prosecution. If she's innocent, that isn't fair.

Just as compensation for unjust imprisonment in (or by) the US governed by US laws (which do not seem to be worth a whole lot if you're a foreigner, especially with a Middle Eastern name, ref. Maher Arar).

You do not have to remind me that the US's policies on imprisonment are unjust.

I like to think, though, that I'd be asking the same questions if I were from any country, including dictatorships that arrest people for little or no reason. The fact that I am American has nothing to do with what I think about compensation for defendants later found innocent. I believe that if it is possible to have four (hopefully no more than that?) trials before Knox can clear her name, it is appropriate that Knox be compensated for any expenses she has incurred in the repeated trials.

If nothing else, this should serve as an incentive for the Italian courts to do things properly the first time, rather than have things devolve into a drawn-out appeals battle.

...Is the function of the prosecutor NOT to prosecute? Or is the verb 'to prosecute' not being used in the way I'm familiar with? I thought the job of a prosecutor was to present the state's case against the defendant, and to attempt to persuade the court(s) that the defendant is guilty.

If you bothered to read my previous post, you would know that it is not only that. The prosecutor must, ex officio, meaning as part of his fucking job, take into account all factors that are in the defendant's favor. Not simply maximize chances of getting a conviction. No cherrypicking the evidence, no leaving anything out.

I did not say that the prosecutor was being deliberately unfair and cherrypicking evidence. I said that as I understand it, they were prosecuting- that their primary role is to explain and lay out the state's case against the defendant.

They may also be required to take into account evidence in the defendant's defense. But that doesn't mean their job is to be fully neutral and refuse to take a position on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

I understand what you have told me. But did you mean your statements to imply that the prosecutor is NOT chiefly responsible for, well... prosecuting? For "working as a lawyer in an attempt to prove someone guilty of a crime?"

Typically, such a prosecutor is employed by an organized office with strong ties to law enforcement. Is this not so in Italy?

Yes. The prosecutor has state resources and ties to law enforcement at his disposal, which is why he has such an elevated duty to alaso bring forth ALL the evidence, per above. And which is also why if they get caught abusing their position and power, the state tends to bring the hammer down on them. Especially if there are significant international PR related issues in connection with a case.

Good.

In my case I have a very serious concern about whether or not it is just to allow prosecutors to appeal rulings against them, and when it is just to do so. But trying to get any information or explanations out of people who disagree with me about this is like pulling teeth. I would very much like to be enlightened about why Europe is somehow immune to the problems I describe- but I can't possibly be enlightened if all I hear is "you are ignorant, mistakes and abuses of the system don't happen in Italy."

Both sides are allowed to appeal up to the highest level (if they so choose) and there are numerous built in falisafes to ensure that the process is as fair as possible both ways. Remember that it is not just the defendant's right to justice in question, but also the right of the aggrieved party to get justice (whether the aggrieved party has suffered assault, armed robbery, embezzlement or the murder of a relative). Your hyper-focus on only the defendant seems like you have absolutely no problem shitting on the other side, simply because they are also seeking justice but doing so through the state apparatus. There is a very good reason why it is the state that handles that side rather than leaving the plaintiff to seek justice by whatever means they choose.

Since I am keenly aware of how prosecutions can become persecutions (which happens all the time in the US), I am sensitive to that issue.

In this case, I'm trying to ask questions about why it isn't seen as important that when the defendant hears "you are innocent, you may go," that statement be binding on the courts.

The reply I'm getting is that because European courts are just so much better and more competent, they don't need their verdicts of innocence to be binding as insurance against a biased prosecution. And that the prosecutor's appeals are only granted for good reasons.

The main thing I'm still looking for here is... what good reason? I know that the Italian Supreme Court is not required to release its reasoning on the case for another ninety days, sure. But if there were obvious, blatant flaws in the appeals court ruling that would justify overturning their verdict, shouldn't people be able to at least make educated guesses as to what they are? Especially people so much more knowledgeable about Italian law than I am?

Can we please have an actual conversation about the role of double jeopardy in a legal system, instead of "Europe doesn't have double jeopardy you ignorant slimeball" and "only a stupid American would think double jeopardy should apply to murder trials."

The entire concept of double jeopardy being a get out of jail free card as long as you manage to hide enough evidence at your first trial is a pretty uniquely American concept that is held in utter contempt in most of Europe for a very good reason.

Fair enough. Was there evidence of evidence being withheld in the Knox case? I don't remember the defense withholding or hiding evidence at that time.

There is no reason to have any discussion why European countries should adopt that idiocy.

Is that the exact 'idiocy' I am talking about? I'm pretty sure I'm on record saying that significant new evidence is a reason to allow the prosecution to appeal, and that this would be reasonable.

Do I think Italy needs the American double jeopardy system? No. Do I think it needs SOME concept of double jeopardy? I'm beginning to wonder, though I'd like to know why the Italian Supreme Court overturned the verdict before I firm up my opinion.

Or should we have "an actual conversation" about the merits of teaching flat earth geography in American schools?

Sure. It would go something like:

"Should we teach that the Earth is flat?" "No, because it isn't, it's round." That is an 'actual conversation in my book.'

I don't ask that the conversation be long, or that it extend undue respect to an obviously flawed idea. I just ask that it make basic allowances for what both parties might know, or not know. And that people be willing to answer calmly, rather than dismissing something out of hand and then insulting them when they are unable to guess why it was dismissed.

Or when they present Idea A, and have it dismissed because someone else presented Idea B that is related but not identical.

Is the function of the prosecutor NOT to prosecute? Or is the verb 'to prosecute' not being used in the way I'm familiar with? I thought the job of a prosecutor was to present the state's case against the defendant, and to attempt to persuade the court(s) that the defendant is guilty.

No, the job is to find out the truth and act accordingly. Edi dealt with the rest of your post but this stood out too strong to ignore. It has been explained to you, what, six times that the prosecutor is not only prosecuting and you are still not getting it?

Probably because I got hung up on the word "prosecutor" and the verb "to prosecute." Apparently, the thing this word means in English is not the same as what it means to people from continental Europe.

If you look at the definitions of "prosecute" and "prosecutor" in an English dictionary, you get a definition that apparently flows from the English common-law system. In which a 'prosecutor' IS a state employee responsible for the state's case against the defendant. Just as the defense attorney is a (usually private) employee responsible for the defendant's case... and not for the state's case. In English, 'prosecutor' and 'defense attorney' are pretty much exact mirror images of each other.

Requiring such a prosecutor to be fair is not the same thing as saying they are neutral in the case, or that they are not paid to be partisan in the case.

If continental European 'prosecutors' are NOT at all partisan, then arguably we need a whole different word for what they do in the English language. I hadn't quite grasped that until today.

Les Miserables was written as a specific point against a specific legal theory in place in France right now, that being a criminal means one could never lead a productive life again. That is why the story was written, to show how utter BS it was. And that is why it is not applicable here because the state is not out to prohibit Knox from ever becoming a successful member of society again.

Thanas, do you seriously think that a literary work can only have one theme, or apply only to a specific period in history while being meaningless in any other context?

Take a step back, and think about what we might generalize from this theory. It is obviously wrong to think that all criminals are doomed to be unable to live productively. It is also, more generally, wrong to commit disproportionate harm in an attempt to persecute those we believe to be evildoers... but who are in fact innocent of actual wrongdoing. And this lesson is also present in Les Miserables, I would argue.

Les Miserables was written as a specific point against a specific legal theory in place in France right now, that being a criminal means one could never lead a productive life again. That is why the story was written, to show how utter BS it was. And that is why it is not applicable here because the state is not out to prohibit Knox from ever becoming a successful member of society again.

I find it hilarious that my fellow American would use Les Miserables when your description of its themes is pretty much the view of the American system for people convicted of a felony. Because when you get out of jail, you can't get any public assistance, it's almost impossible to get a job, you can't own a firearm (though that's a big duh), and you can't vote (in almost every state). The only way to get any of these rights back is to lead an exemplary life afterwards (or be rich) and get a pardon by the governor of your state. Sounds a lot like what you described.

The American system is utter dreck and I know it as well as you do.

The existence of double jeopardy is perhaps the ONLY part of the American system I can think of, in the past five years, that I've looked at and said "you know, this thing we do is pretty much right." And even that, the US doesn't do truly properly, because it leads to things like the defense trying to conceal evidence.

But "the American system is worse than the [insert country here]-ian system" is not logically equivalent to "and therefore, every thing in the American system is inferior to the alternatives used by other systems."

Nor is it equivalent to "and therefore, every American is grossly unqualified to criticize any legal decision made in any other country."

[Thanas]

]Yes, I understand all these things. So potentially we're looking at a total of four trials, plus time taken for Supreme Court deliberations. I'm not even arguing (here) that this is too many, or anything of that nature. I am simply asking:

IF Knox is found innocent, and that is certainly possible, THEN will she be compensated for the large amount of time she's spent in prison?

IF she is found innocent, THEN will she be compensated for expenses associated with all the numerous trials? Some of them? None of them?

Usually you get the assorted expenses back if you are innocent and can show they were related to the trial.

I hope not. But given the absurdities alleged in the first trial (satanic plot) and the trouble I'm having pinning anyone down on what the second trial (the appeals court one) might have been, I am not entirely optimistic.

Decision is not even out yet and you already know what happened? Quick, tell me next week's lottery numbers.

Now, I think that isn't fair. Especially in a case where there are numerous, repeated trials, or multiple trials being refought in the same court. The prosecution continues to get paid by the state to keep prosecuting these trials. Any travel, consultations, or other expenses they incur are presumably on the state budget. But even assuming the state is paying Knox's defense fees (I do not know), are they paying her ancillary expenses?

If not, it seems unfair to Knox that the trial sequence be protracted, because she's paying direct costs for the protracted defense, while only the Italian taxpayers are paying for the protracted prosecution. If she's innocent, that isn't fair.

Depends. You get funds up to a certain degree and whether they are necessary for your trial.

You do not have to remind me that the US's policies on imprisonment are unjust.

I like to think, though, that I'd be asking the same questions if I were from any country, including dictatorships that arrest people for little or no reason. The fact that I am American has nothing to do with what I think about compensation for defendants later found innocent. I believe that if it is possible to have four (hopefully no more than that?) trials before Knox can clear her name, it is appropriate that Knox be compensated for any expenses she has incurred in the repeated trials.

If nothing else, this should serve as an incentive for the Italian courts to do things properly the first time, rather than have things devolve into a drawn-out appeals battle.

Your statement suggest you not getting that this is within the norm for almost every legal system in Europe when it comes to such highly-publicized trials.

I said that as I understand it, they were prosecuting- that their primary role is to explain and lay out the state's case against the defendant.

WRONG FOR THE FIFTEENTH TIME.

They may also be required to take into account evidence in the defendant's defense. But that doesn't mean their job is to be fully neutral and refuse to take a position on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

If you do not uinderstand it after it having been explained to you so many times, what else do you neeed? Me drawing in crayon? I thought you were intelligent.

Prosecutor gets file. File contains many facts. Prosecutor thinks on facts. Then tells facts to court and Defence. then builds case on facts. Then trial happens. Get it now? His role is to find out the truth and all facts pertaining to the case when possible and to act on that if appropriate. Sometimes this means filing charges and prosecuting a case. Sometimes it means dropping it all together. Sometimes it means using discretion. All things DAs in the USA also do - except there is no pressure on them in the European system to get as many convictions as possible.

I understand what you have told me. But did you mean your statements to imply that the prosecutor is NOT chiefly responsible for, well... prosecuting? For "working as a lawyer in an attempt to prove someone guilty of a crime?"

Do you even read what is being written in this thread?

In this case, I'm trying to ask questions about why it isn't seen as important that when the defendant hears "you are innocent, you may go," that statement be binding on the courts.

The reply I'm getting is that because European courts are just so much better and more competent, they don't need their verdicts of innocence to be binding as insurance against a biased prosecution.

That is a very bad characterization. It is not necessary for them to be binding because there are many ways to check and re-check the judgement in the case for mistakes. If at least two bodies concur in their opinion of the defendant, that is a better way to safeguard for mistakes than to have just one body make a deliberation.

And that the prosecutor's appeals are only granted for good reasons.

The main thing I'm still looking for here is... what good reason?

Mistakes in judgement and mistakes in law, same as in the US (only there however only a guilty verdict can be appealed).

I know that the Italian Supreme Court is not required to release its reasoning on the case for another ninety days, sure. But if there were obvious, blatant flaws in the appeals court ruling that would justify overturning their verdict, shouldn't people be able to at least make educated guesses as to what they are? Especially people so much more knowledgeable about Italian law than I am?

Yes and if you read the article cited in this very thread you would know what these were. Seriously, go look for them. Hint: It is in the article I linked to and quoted.

Fair enough. Was there evidence of evidence being withheld in the Knox case? I don't remember the defense withholding or hiding evidence at that time.

No, there was not.

No, the job is to find out the truth and act accordingly. Edi dealt with the rest of your post but this stood out too strong to ignore. It has been explained to you, what, six times that the prosecutor is not only prosecuting and you are still not getting it?

Probably because I got hung up on the word "prosecutor" and the verb "to prosecute." Apparently, the thing this word means in English is not the same as what it means to people from continental Europe.

If you look at the definitions of "prosecute" and "prosecutor" in an English dictionary, you get a definition that apparently flows from the English common-law system. In which a 'prosecutor' IS a state employee responsible for the state's case against the defendant. Just as the defense attorney is a (usually private) employee responsible for the defendant's case... and not for the state's case. In English, 'prosecutor' and 'defense attorney' are pretty much exact mirror images of each other.

Requiring such a prosecutor to be fair is not the same thing as saying they are neutral in the case, or that they are not paid to be partisan in the case.

If continental European 'prosecutors' are NOT at all partisan, then arguably we need a whole different word for what they do in the English language. I hadn't quite grasped that until today.

They are not partisans. They are required to find the truth. This is what the inquisitorial trial was - the search for truth (despite them going about it in horrid ways and their basic premise being flawed). It still is the basis for all continental law systems. The ideal is a remote, removed, impartial trial where all members try to strive to find the truth. This even extends to defence attorneys though they are allowed to be more partial. For example, they are allowed to do pretty much anything except outright lie to the judge or breach the good conduct required before the court, such as intimidating a witness or becoming the quintessential mob lawyer who actively conspires to wreck a trial like "better whack all those witnesses".

Thanas, do you seriously think that a literary work can only have one theme, or apply only to a specific period in history while being meaningless in any other context?

No but I will definitely not agree with you as trying to pass the author's intent off as something it was not. Hugo was not arguing against criminals being prosecuted. He was arguing against unjust theories and laws, not arguing against the right to appeal.

Take a step back, and think about what we might generalize from this theory. It is obviously wrong to think that all criminals are doomed to be unable to live productively. It is also, more generally, wrong to commit disproportionate harm in an attempt to persecute those we believe to be evildoers... but who are in fact innocent of actual wrongdoing. And this lesson is also present in Les Miserables, I would argue.

Innocent of actual wrongdoing is the question here and not even Hugo advocated that the legal system should not get to make that determination.

The American system is utter dreck and I know it as well as you do.

The existence of double jeopardy is perhaps the ONLY part of the American system I can think of, in the past five years, that I've looked at and said "you know, this thing we do is pretty much right." And even that, the US doesn't do truly properly, because it leads to things like the defense trying to conceal evidence.

But "the American system is worse than the [insert country here]-ian system" is not logically equivalent to "and therefore, every thing in the American system is inferior to the alternatives used by other systems."

Nor is it equivalent to "and therefore, every American is grossly unqualified to criticize any legal decision made in any other country."

Nor should it translate to "I don't know what the rule of prosecutors are, but lets make wild guesses about a translated verb from a dictionary when it has been explained numerous times in this thread", nor should it translate to "I don't like the reasoning but failed to read linked sources explaining them" nor should it translate to "getting in a snit because people don't like to spoonfeed me everything".

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Probably because I got hung up on the word "prosecutor" and the verb "to prosecute." Apparently, the thing this word means in English is not the same as what it means to people from continental Europe.

If you look at the definitions of "prosecute" and "prosecutor" in an English dictionary, you get a definition that apparently flows from the English common-law system. In which a 'prosecutor' IS a state employee responsible for the state's case against the defendant. Just as the defense attorney is a (usually private) employee responsible for the defendant's case... and not for the state's case. In English, 'prosecutor' and 'defense attorney' are pretty much exact mirror images of each other.

Requiring such a prosecutor to be fair is not the same thing as saying they are neutral in the case, or that they are not paid to be partisan in the case.

If continental European 'prosecutors' are NOT at all partisan, then arguably we need a whole different word for what they do in the English language. I hadn't quite grasped that until today.

Then obviously the ministers in question are not prosecutors. They have powers and duties that are translated as such, and are similar to American prosecutors, but they are not Americans using foreignese.

[Beowulf]

If you bothered to read my previous post, you would know that it is not only that. The prosecutor must, ex officio, meaning as part of his fucking job, take into account all factors that are in the defendant's favor. Not simply maximize chances of getting a conviction. No cherrypicking the evidence, no leaving anything out. Defense lawyers are under no such obligation to furnish the prosecutor with information unfavorable to their client's case (unless withholding that information itself would be criminal, and wrt that, statutes in the different countries may vary and the attorney-client privilege is also in play). So the deck is already somewhat stacked in the defendant's favor.

Could you explain how this differs from US prosecutor's obligations under Brady v. Maryland to disclose "exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant"? US prosecutors notionally have a job of convicting the guy who did it, not just getting a conviction. This doesn't keep them from getting tunnel vision, and going after a guy who they become convinced did and, and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

And it's not as if the US doesn't have multiple notionally independent layers that are supposed to cross check each other to help verify that a conviction is correct. The problem is that rather than actually checking each other, they tend to assume prior layers did their job correctly. Thus, we end up with the Central Park Five, who were convicted on the basis of videotaped confessions.

Which comes to my next point: people in this thread wonder why prosecutors would be interested in convicting the wrong person for a crime. Why would someone confess to a crime they didn't commit?

[Borgholio]

Why would someone confess to a crime they didn't commit?

Fear, intimidation, lack of understanding of exactly what they're confessing to...take your pick.

[Simon_Jester]

Why would someone confess to a crime they didn't commit?

Fear, intimidation, lack of understanding of exactly what they're confessing to...take your pick.

Exactly- point being, it happens all the time. Why should we be more surprised at a prosecutor being wrong than we are at an innocent man confessing to a serious crime?

Which is more likely: that an investigator will fixate on the wrong suspect? Or that an ordinary person would confess to a murder they didn't commit? I know which I would deem more likely- and yet false confessions happen routinely. So, I imagine, do false-positive prosecutions.

If you bothered to read my previous post, you would know that it is not only that. The prosecutor must, ex officio, meaning as part of his fucking job, take into account all factors that are in the defendant's favor. Not simply maximize chances of getting a conviction. No cherrypicking the evidence, no leaving anything out. Defense lawyers are under no such obligation to furnish the prosecutor with information unfavorable to their client's case (unless withholding that information itself would be criminal, and wrt that, statutes in the different countries may vary and the attorney-client privilege is also in play). So the deck is already somewhat stacked in the defendant's favor.

Could you explain how this differs from US prosecutor's obligations under Brady v. Maryland to disclose "exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant"? US prosecutors notionally have a job of convicting the guy who did it, not just getting a conviction. This doesn't keep them from getting tunnel vision, and going after a guy who they become convinced did and, and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

EXACTLY this. My point is that we should hardly be surprised that an Italian prosecutor just plain screwed up, and that an Italian court happens to have let their bad argument stand. It happens. It happens in all sorts of systems- and it's exactly the sort of thing that the presumption of innocence and double jeopardy are supposed to cover.

It is ALSO a reason for appeals courts to do their jobs properly, so that the same verdict doesn't have to be bounced back and forth across half of Italy like a tennis ball after flaws are found in the appeals court ruling...

Then obviously the ministers in question are not prosecutors. They have powers and duties that are translated as such, and are similar to American prosecutors, but they are not Americans using foreignese.

Fine. I quite agree!

But you can see how this caused me confusion, when everyone else uses the word 'prosecutor' to describe them, which means pretty much the same thing in all English-speaking countries so far as I know of... and that definition is NOT a very accurate description of what the ministers in question are supposed to be (i.e. impartial).

It took me quite some time to realize that people were not merely asserting that European prosecutors don't conceal evidence, that they are honorable and professional which I believe is on the whole true. But that people were trying to tell me that they are in fact neutral, or are supposed to be, and are in no way criticized by the state for failing to present a solid case on the state's behalf.

Usually you get the assorted expenses back if you are innocent and can show they were related to the trial.

Good. That's a good thing then.

I hope not. But given the absurdities alleged in the first trial (satanic plot) and the trouble I'm having pinning anyone down on what the second trial (the appeals court one) might have been, I am not entirely optimistic.

Decision is not even out yet and you already know what happened? Quick, tell me next week's lottery numbers.

"I am not optimistic" is not the same as "I know what will happen and how good the new Italian Supreme Court ruling's reasoning is."

I am somewhat pessimistic about the impartiality and fairness of the Italian courts in this matter, just as I am all the damn time much much more pessimistic about, say, US courts' impartiality and fairness in any case related to terrorism.

Given the well known facts of the case, I am honestly not clear on why this case is still going on. There MAY be some very logical explanation for why the appeals court ruling was obviously wrong. However, at this time, I am pessimistic about that, because no one seems to be able/willing to point out anything that would readily explain it.

If it were common knowledge that the appeals court had done something grossly wrong and stupid, fine, but the closest we've come to that is that paragraph from the article you linked... and I'm honestly not clear on why there's a legal problem associated with any of the things cited in that paragraph.

Thus, I am pessimistic- I suspect that the reason for canceling the appeals verdict is going to be something I would find a bit spurious, or that I would think should not override the known facts of the case (no forensic evidence convicting Sollecito and Knox, no particularly credible motive, etc.).

Don't you ever make tentative 'optimistic/pessimistic' predictions about anything based on an informal opinion?

You do not have to remind me that the US's policies on imprisonment are unjust.

I like to think, though, that I'd be asking the same questions if I were from any country, including dictatorships that arrest people for little or no reason. The fact that I am American has nothing to do with what I think about compensation for defendants later found innocent. I believe that if it is possible to have four (hopefully no more than that?) trials before Knox can clear her name, it is appropriate that Knox be compensated for any expenses she has incurred in the repeated trials.

If nothing else, this should serve as an incentive for the Italian courts to do things properly the first time, rather than have things devolve into a drawn-out appeals battle.

Your statement suggest you not getting that this is within the norm for almost every legal system in Europe when it comes to such highly-publicized trials.

Honestly, no, because I don't follow European courtroom drama as a regular form of entertainment.

But honestly, YES, I think court systems should be capable of getting a high-publicity case right at the local level, without needing to retry and reretry because of mutual interlocking cases of suspected misconduct or incompetence.

Having to run around back and forth like this, and the fact that each court is apparently giving the next higher court cause to doubt the reliability of its verdicts... well, it may be normal, but it hardly speaks well of the Italian judiciary. Or anyone's judiciary.

I said that as I understand it, they were prosecuting- that their primary role is to explain and lay out the state's case against the defendant.

WRONG FOR THE FIFTEENTH TIME.

Yeah, I figured that out later. In which case the word "prosecutor" is actually a very poor translation from Italian/German/whatever into English.

Because yes, a prosecutor is assumed to be partisan in the English language. That doesn't mean they're dishonest, suppressing evidence, or doing anything else unprofessional- but it DOES mean that they take responsibility for the state's side of the case, while not taking responsibility for ensuring the defendant gets a good defense.

A prosecutor shouldn't lie, sure, but in the normal English-language meaning of 'prosecutor,' they ARE expected to actually try to get someone convicted.

Prosecutor gets file. File contains many facts. Prosecutor thinks on facts. Then tells facts to court and Defence. then builds case on facts. Then trial happens. Get it now? His role is to find out the truth and all facts pertaining to the case when possible and to act on that if appropriate. Sometimes this means filing charges and prosecuting a case. Sometimes it means dropping it all together. Sometimes it means using discretion. All things DAs in the USA also do - except there is no pressure on them in the European system to get as many convictions as possible.

By the time a prosecutor has decided to bring the matter to trial, though, presumably they've already made up their mind that the case is worth prosecuting. In which case, they are, well... "prosecuting" as I understand the word.

In which case questions about whether or not a prosecutor may get tunnel vision and continue pursuing a case after it stops making sense to do so is still reasonable, and "no our prosecutors are really fair that would never happen" is... at most a partial refutation of that.

I understand what you have told me. But did you mean your statements to imply that the prosecutor is NOT chiefly responsible for, well... prosecuting? For "working as a lawyer in an attempt to prove someone guilty of a crime?"

Do you even read what is being written in this thread?

Yes, but it wasn't until literally this afternoon that it became clear to me that I'm the victim of a massive mis-translation, and that an Italian "prosecutor" is apparently my idea of an "investigator" or something, and the state actually doesn't care if he prosecutes or not, and the prosecutor is therefore immune to tunnel vision and "must get this evildoer" syndrome, because he presents all evidence impartially and is not a partisan figure within the courtroom the way that, say, the defense attorney is.

I know that the Italian Supreme Court is not required to release its reasoning on the case for another ninety days, sure. But if there were obvious, blatant flaws in the appeals court ruling that would justify overturning their verdict, shouldn't people be able to at least make educated guesses as to what they are? Especially people so much more knowledgeable about Italian law than I am?

Yes and if you read the article cited in this very thread you would know what these were. Seriously, go look for them. Hint: It is in the article I linked to and quoted.

So let me be clear... the references read:

The court had been instructed by the judges in the cassation court to consider the evidence as a whole, rather than in the "fragmented" way the Perugia appeals court had done. It also said it should pay heed to the sentence of Rudy Guede, the young man in jail for the murder, which found he did not act alone, and encouraged the court to consider Knox's false naming of Patrick Lumumba in connection with the murder charge, rather than separating it out. (She says she only named him due to intense police pressure.)

So let me get this straight:

The first 'flaw' in the original appeals ruling is that the evidence was supposedly considered in a 'fragmented' way. I am unclear on what this means or how it influenced the Perugia ruling.

The second 'flaw' is that when Guede was sentenced the court concluded that he probably did not act alone. First of all, was this sentence passed by the same court that convicted Knox and Sollecito in the first place? If so, and IF Sollecito and Knox are innocent, then we should hardly be surprised that they made the same mistake while trying Guede (thinking Knox and Sollecito did it) that they did trying Knox and Sollecito themselves. If not, then is "the court things Party A acted with comrades" sufficient evidence to convict Parties B and C in the absence of forensic evidence or a sensible motive?

The third 'flaw' is that Knox falsely accused someone else of having been involved in the murder, after she herself was being interrogated and asked whether she'd committed the murder, and if so, with whom. I fail to see how this indicates that she was the murderer.

I reread the part you seem to be referring me to. (1) makes no sense whatsoever to me, and (2) and (3) don't seem to present evidence of guilt strong enough to support a conviction in the absence of physical evidence or a definable motive.

What's the problem here?

Fair enough. Was there evidence of evidence being withheld in the Knox case? I don't remember the defense withholding or hiding evidence at that time.

No, there was not.

OK, in that case it must be a mistake in a matter of law or judgment. So what's the mistake? If it's something this arcane, then it strikes me that there IS a flaw in the system, because at some point this "go back and retry the case making a slightly different starting assumption about how you weight the evidence" attitude almost has to become counterproductive.

Thanas, do you seriously think that a literary work can only have one theme, or apply only to a specific period in history while being meaningless in any other context?

No but I will definitely not agree with you as trying to pass the author's intent off as something it was not. Hugo was not arguing against criminals being prosecuted. He was arguing against unjust theories and laws, not arguing against the right to appeal.

So, you would argue that there is no generalization to "it is sometimes possible to pursue a suspected criminal, past the point where it ceases to make sense to do so, and becomes a wrongful act in its own right." Gotcha.

Nor should it translate to "I don't know what the rule of prosecutors are, but lets make wild guesses about a translated verb from a dictionary when it has been explained numerous times in this thread",

Well no, my point is, that's what "prosecutor" means in English. I am sincerely sorry that I thought the word translated from Italian as "prosecutor" actually means something more like "investigator." And that this particular prosecutor is fair and balanced, and Italian prosecutors in general are trustworthy somehow. Despite the fact that the prosecutor's office in this case has kept it up for several years in the face of a dearth of physical evidence condemning Sollecito and Knox, even when there are apparently mountains of similar evidence condemning Guede... which doesn't strike me as the act of an open-minded and neutral investigator.

Sure, I could be wrong. But how gullible do you expect me to be, how willing to placidly assume that this particular Italian prosecutor, and by extension all Italian prosecutors, are impeccably impartial because European justice is Just That Good?

nor should it translate to "I don't like the reasoning but failed to read linked sources explaining them" nor should it translate to "getting in a snit because people don't like to spoonfeed me everything".

I DID read the link, and as far as I can tell there's nothing there, or at least nothing specific enough to explain what's going on to me.

[Thanas]

First of all, did nobody here read the article and realize that this is not the original court or prosecutor, but a new trial in Florence? Not in Perugia? This is not the same court and the same prosecutor.

Fear, intimidation, lack of understanding of exactly what they're confessing to...take your pick.

Exactly- point being, it happens all the time. Why should we be more surprised at a prosecutor being wrong than we are at an innocent man confessing to a serious crime?

Which is more likely: that an investigator will fixate on the wrong suspect? Or that an ordinary person would confess to a murder they didn't commit? I know which I would deem more likely- and yet false confessions happen routinely. So, I imagine, do false-positive prosecutions.

Yes yes and of course that means the poor dear must be innocent.

EXACTLY this. My point is that we should hardly be surprised that an Italian prosecutor just plain screwed up, and that an Italian court happens to have let their bad argument stand. It happens. It happens in all sorts of systems- and it's exactly the sort of thing that the presumption of innocence and double jeopardy are supposed to cover.

As if the presumption of innocence does not exist in Italy....and as if this was the same court and same prosecutor....

It is ALSO a reason for appeals courts to do their jobs properly, so that the same verdict doesn't have to be bounced back and forth across half of Italy like a tennis ball after flaws are found in the appeals court ruling...

Oh, so you rather they not fix what are mistakes and instead let a flawed judgement stand?

But you can see how this caused me confusion, when everyone else uses the word 'prosecutor' to describe them, which means pretty much the same thing in all English-speaking countries so far as I know of... and that definition is NOT a very accurate description of what the ministers in question are supposed to be (i.e. impartial).

It only took you so long because you failed to read and to understand what was clearly pointed out several pages ago. Don't blame anything else for this except your own idiocy.

I hope not. But given the absurdities alleged in the first trial (satanic plot) and the trouble I'm having pinning anyone down on what the second trial (the appeals court one) might have been, I am not entirely optimistic.

Decision is not even out yet and you already know what happened? Quick, tell me next week's lottery numbers.

"I am not optimistic" is not the same as "I know what will happen and how good the new Italian Supreme Court ruling's reasoning is."

Oh so you were talking about your ass as usual. GTFO.

(And if you try and pass this of as informed opinion, then I am going to laugh at you even more as by your own admission, you don't even know the basics of the Italian system)

Given the well known facts of the case, I am honestly not clear on why this case is still going on.

Because you are an idiot and cannot see beyond your own prejudices as to what a justice system should be. Seriously, that is the only reason here. It was explained several times that mistakes are supposed to be fixed (a novel concept apparently to you). It was explained several times that this process can take some time. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS.

There is no other explanation besides you being a dumb uneducated hillbilly for why we have to go over this a million times more.

I'm honestly not clear on why there's a legal problem associated with any of the things cited in that paragraph.

That is because you are an idiot and not a lawyer. The first part is self-evident to anybody reading this thread, the second part will be explained more in detail (not that I expect it to do anything good but spawn another ten-page discussion. Just like the last thread about Knox did - and by the time the third thread will roll around I bet you will have forgotten all about these explanations again)

Don't you ever make tentative 'optimistic/pessimistic' predictions about anything based on an informal opinion?

LOLOLOLOLOL.
You seriously claim that you have an informed opinion about the facts and the law when you did not even know the basics of the justice system? Heck, that is as hilarious as me claiming I got an informed opinion about quantum physics because I know the basics of Heisenberg's theories. Oh wait, it is even less than that because you don't even know the basics of the underlying system in this case.

Your statement suggest you not getting that this is within the norm for almost every legal system in Europe when it comes to such highly-publicized trials.

Honestly, no, because I don't follow European courtroom drama as a regular form of entertainment.

Then shut the heck up about things you do not understand. Seriously. Educate yourself.

But honestly, YES, I think court systems should be capable of getting a high-publicity case right at the local level, without needing to retry and reretry because of mutual interlocking cases of suspected misconduct or incompetence.

Having to run around back and forth like this, and the fact that each court is apparently giving the next higher court cause to doubt the reliability of its verdicts... well, it may be normal, but it hardly speaks well of the Italian judiciary. Or anyone's judiciary.

That is just because you are prejudiced again. Most Europeans find it normal and as LaCroix has shown again - WHICH YOU IGNORED - the Italian system is actually more effective than the US one. Now, guess what I might find more credible - your prejudices as to what a system should be or the proven results?

]Yeah, I figured that out later. In which case the word "prosecutor" is actually a very poor translation from Italian/German/whatever into English.

Because yes, a prosecutor is assumed to be partisan in the English language. That doesn't mean they're dishonest, suppressing evidence, or doing anything else unprofessional- but it DOES mean that they take responsibility for the state's side of the case, while not taking responsibility for ensuring the defendant gets a good defense.

A prosecutor shouldn't lie, sure, but in the normal English-language meaning of 'prosecutor,' they ARE expected to actually try to get someone convicted.

I don't think the Italians are responsible for you not being able to understand their language or for you being deceived by your language not being able to offer a reasonable translation. (Though nobody who read this story in English and had knowledge of the issues at hand would be getting confused but that again is a problem of lack of education).

By the time a prosecutor has decided to bring the matter to trial, though, presumably they've already made up their mind that the case is worth prosecuting. In which case, they are, well... "prosecuting" as I understand the word.

In which case questions about whether or not a prosecutor may get tunnel vision and continue pursuing a case after it stops making sense to do so is still reasonable, and "no our prosecutors are really fair that would never happen" is... at most a partial refutation of that.

No, it might just mean that they think there is a chance the case may go either way. It might also mean that they think there is not enough evidence but bringing the case is worth it for some other reasons (establishing a basis of fact for the purpose of other trials, like civil ones, to clear the name of a subject etc.) Again, you fail in assuming, which makes an ass out of you and then immediately latch on that thin assumption and declare the most likely scenario is X. Boohoo to you.

So let me be clear... the references read:

The court had been instructed by the judges in the cassation court to consider the evidence as a whole, rather than in the "fragmented" way the Perugia appeals court had done. It also said it should pay heed to the sentence of Rudy Guede, the young man in jail for the murder, which found he did not act alone, and encouraged the court to consider Knox's false naming of Patrick Lumumba in connection with the murder charge, rather than separating it out. (She says she only named him due to intense police pressure.)

So let me get this straight:

The first 'flaw' in the original appeals ruling is that the evidence was supposedly considered in a 'fragmented' way. I am unclear on what this means or how it influenced the Perugia ruling.

Then you should wait on getting the full decision. It may simply be that they decided to only consider parts of the evidence.

The second 'flaw' is that when Guede was sentenced the court concluded that he probably did not act alone. First of all, was this sentence passed by the same court that convicted Knox and Sollecito in the first place?

Not to my knowledge, it was seperated from the Knox case iirc.

If so, and IF Sollecito and Knox are innocent, then we should hardly be surprised that they made the same mistake while trying Guede (thinking Knox and Sollecito did it) that they did trying Knox and Sollecito themselves. If not, then is "the court things Party A acted with comrades" sufficient evidence to convict Parties B and C in the absence of forensic evidence or a sensible motive?

The third 'flaw' is that Knox falsely accused someone else of having been involved in the murder, after she herself was being interrogated and asked whether she'd committed the murder, and if so, with whom. I fail to see how this indicates that she was the murderer.

I reread the part you seem to be referring me to. (1) makes no sense whatsoever to me, and (2) and (3) don't seem to present evidence of guilt strong enough to support a conviction in the absence of physical evidence or a definable motive.

What's the problem here?

The main problem is that you suffer a lack of imagination when it comes to finding theories to find the poor poor girl guilty but apparently not from a lack of imagination when it comes to making Italy look bad.

Let us look at the evidence. Neither she nor her boyfriend gave consistent or reliable Alibis for the time of the murder. She lied to the police. SHE ADMITTED SHE WAS AT THE CRIME SCENE. She falsely accused somebody else of the murder. Her statements were bad. She was nervous when taking fingerprints and had several breakdowns. She later claimed the police had abused her (no evidence for that). The main suspect meanwhile was found to not be acting alone.

None of that is enough to convince her on her own. Those things, when combined, however paint a picture that at least allows for the possibility of her hiding something and therefore at least should be legitimately asked in a trial. Do you disagree with the notion that a trial court is the best place for such questions?`

It may very well be that she is innocent. It may very well be that she is guilty. But the court deserves to have a chance to hear it out.

OK, in that case it must be a mistake in a matter of law or judgment. So what's the mistake? If it's something this arcane, then it strikes me that there IS a flaw in the system, because at some point this "go back and retry the case making a slightly different starting assumption about how you weight the evidence" attitude almost has to become counterproductive.

It is the basis on which a lot of appeals (certainly the majority which I see) get decided in Europe and you just declare from your lofty position it is counterproductive? Do you even know that this is the textbook case of mistake in judgement? If you throw this out then no mistake in judgement could ever be punished. Like "gee, I don't know if this written confession should carry equal weight to the oral one he made to a confident" or "Gee, is the fact that he purchased a gun indication for motive? Let's say yes based on X. Ignore Y, I find it stupid."

The arrogance, it know no bounds.

So, you would argue that there is no generalization to "it is sometimes possible to pursue a suspected criminal, past the point where it ceases to make sense to do so, and becomes a wrongful act in its own right." Gotcha.

I would however object it being the main point of the novel especially since the novel makes it quite clear that Javert is a deeply flawed man.

[Thanas]

Here are some articles I find illuminating:

First, this video.
Interview
Everyone should watch this. Everyone.


Accompanying article.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said that Italian prosecutors might very well extradite Knox. And, if retried, she "likely will be found guilty -- because the evidence supporting a conviction is pretty strong."

Knox, now 25, has established a fan base in the United States "because she has a beautiful face and an angelic appearance," Dershowitz said. "But remember, she originally admitted she was at the scene of the crime and she tried to blame an innocent man -- for which she was also convicted."

After Knox and Sollecito were detained for questioning in the killing, she allegedly confessed to being at her home when Kercher was killed and implicated Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a bar where she worked.

Lumumba was detained, but was released after two weeks when his alibi was corroborated: he had spent the night of the murder talking to a customer in his pub in Perugia, police say. He went on to sue Knox for libel, winning 40,000 euros ($54,000) in damages.

Dershowitz said the case was not well tried the first time. "But at a second trial, there's a very high likelihood that they may very well convict her."

He predicted that Knox would resist any extradition attempt. But even if she were to succeed in that, "she remains a prisoner in the United States, because Interpol will put a warrant out for her and, if she travels anywhere outside the United States, she'll be immediately arrested and turned over to Italy."

If Knox were to lose an extradition fight and then wind up being convicted, she would go to jail, he said.

If he were advising Kercher's parents, Dershowitz said, he would recommend that they file a civil suit to claim the money Knox has received as an advance for a book about the case that is scheduled for publication next month.

"They have a right to sue her on behalf of their dead daughter," he said, noting that the standard required for conviction in civil cases is a preponderance of the evidence. "I think that would be easy to do."
[....]

"I think he's wrong," Dershowitz said. "I think the Italian legal system will welcome a second trial. They'll put new prosecutors on the case, good ones, and seek to vindicate themselves."

"They will want to have a second opportunity to show that Italian justice can be pure."

Dershowitz said purity has also eluded many members of the U.S. news media who have covered the case closely.

"One issue is why the American media portrayed her in such positive terms," he said. "At best, she was a terrible person who tried to blame it on some innocent person and she was clearly a liar, and at worst she participated in a horrible murder, and the American media focused much more on Amanda Knox than on the victim of the case because Amanda Knox was prettier and an American and an American sweetheart."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1256488436
(by Alan Dershowitz, who is one of the greatest US defence lawyers no matter his politics)

Italy's highest court may have begun a diplomatic and legal tug of war with the United States on Tuesday when it reversed the 2011 acquittal of Amanda Knox. Ms. Knox, you will recall, is the American former exchange student convicted by an Italian trial court in 2009 of murdering her British roommate, Meredith Kercher—but that conviction was overturned on appeal two years ago, and Ms. Knox returned from an Italian prison to the U.S.

The factors behind the initial conviction included an admission by Ms. Knox that she was at the crime scene in the northern Italian town of Perugia, plus her false accusation that a bartender had slit Kercher's throat. The case against her also included a questionable alibi and evidence of her DNA on the alleged murder weapon. In a bizarre ruling, the trial court held that Ms. Knox's admission could not be used against her, but that her false accusation could form the basis of a separate crime that the Italians call "calumny." The appeals court then threw out the DNA evidence (for technical forensic reasons) and acquitted Ms. Knox of the murder charges.

Now Italy's highest court has 90 days to explain its decision to reverse that acquittal. Whatever its reasoning, Italian law calls for the case to be reheard by a new appeals court, which can either affirm the conviction or order an acquittal. If the conviction is ultimately affirmed, the Italian government can petition the U.S. to extradite Ms. Knox to Italy to complete serving the 26-year prison term to which she was sentenced in 2009.

Ms. Knox would likely challenge any extradition request on the ground that she was already acquitted by the lower appellate court, so any subsequent conviction would constitute double jeopardy.

That is when the real legal complexities would kick in, because Italian and American law are quite different and both will be applicable in this transnational case involving a citizen of one country charged with killing a citizen of another country in yet a third country.

America's extradition treaty with Italy prohibits the U.S. from extraditing someone who has been "acquitted," which under American law generally means acquitted by a jury at trial. But Ms. Knox was acquitted by an appeals court after having been found guilty at trial. So would her circumstance constitute double jeopardy under American law?

That is uncertain because appellate courts in the U.S. don't retry cases and render acquittals (they judge whether lower courts made mistakes of law, not fact). Ms. Knox's own Italian lawyer has acknowledged that her appellate "acquittal" wouldn't constitute double jeopardy under Italian law since it wasn't a final judgment—it was subject to further appeal, which has now resulted in a reversal of the acquittal. This argument will probably carry considerable weight with U.S. authorities, likely yielding the conclusion that her extradition wouldn't violate the treaty. Still, a sympathetic U.S. State Department or judge might find that her appellate acquittal was final enough to preclude extradition on double-jeopardy grounds.

Italian courts could probably have avoided this complexity by requiring Ms. Knox to remain in Italy, perhaps subject to house arrest, until the completion of the appeals process. Instead, Italian authorities allowed her to return to the U.S.

It is now unlikely, according to her Italian lawyer, that she will return to Italy while legal proceedings play out over several years in appellate courts where her presence isn't required. Meanwhile, she will be selling a memoir in the U.S., where she is widely regarded as a wrongfully convicted victim of an unjust Italian legal system. In Italy and England, she is seen by many as a guilty and manipulative American

http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/amanda- ... most-final

FLORENCE – The last time she was convicted by an Italian court, Amanda Knox was whisked back to prison for warm milk and cookies with her Perugia cellmates. This time, she watched from her mother’s comfortable West Seattle home, with network television cameras ready to record every moment of emotion in the aftermath.

That is how this story has unfolded. A European country convicts an American. The American watches the verdict in live streaming and then protests in a series of coordinated appearances… the whole thing chronicled in real time as if the murder of Briton Meredith Kercher were some sort of twisted reality show, not a heinous crime being tried in a serious European court of law.

Frankly, it makes a mockery of the Italian magistrates who professionally managed this appeal, and who regularly risk their lives prosecuting the mafia in that very same courtroom. Has American arrogance ever been so bold? Have the western media ever been so complicit in such an orchestrated public relations sham?
[...]

Knox was first convicted in November 2009. Her supporters and lawyers doubled down and won her acquittal on appeal in October 2011. She flew home the following day to Seattle and began rebuilding her life.

But that acquittal was annulled by Italy’s highest court in 2013 for a series of irregularities, and a new appeal was ordered in a more neutral jurisdiction – Florence. After 12 hours of deliberation yesterday, the two judges and six lay jurors from Florence upheld the original court’s finding: Guilty.

Guilty of murder, carrying a concealed weapon, sexual assault, simulating a crime scene and slandering Patrick Lumumba.

They sentenced Knox to 28 years and six months, two years more than her original conviction because of her malicious accusation against Congolese nightclub owner Patrick Lumumba, who was innocent, but believes he was blamed because he was black. (Another African, Ivory Coast national Rudy Guede, was eventually arrested and convicted in connection with the murder. He is serving a separate 16-year sentence in Italy for his involvement).

Knox’s former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito was sentenced to 25 years and his passport and identification documents were ordered confiscated. The court did not order the same measure for Knox, noting that she is legitimately residing in the US, where such requests would not apply.

And finally, the interpretation of all the evidence from a "she is guilty" point of view does make sense as presented.

[stormthebeaches]

The entire concept of double jeopardy being a get out of jail free card as long as you manage to hide enough evidence at your first trial is a pretty uniquely American concept that is held in utter contempt in most of Europe for a very good reason. There is no reason to have any discussion why European countries should adopt that idiocy. Or should we have "an actual conversation" about the merits of teaching flat earth geography in American schools?

Just a quick FYI but one of the reasons for double jeopardy was to ensure that the prosecution would not hold back evidence, only to release it after the trial to force a retrial. Why would they do this? A second trial would increase the chance of getting a conviction, for one thing. Multiple trials could also allow the prosecution to win by financial attrition as the defend runs out of money for their legal defense. And before someone shouts that Italian prosecutors don't have a motive to due that let me remind people that prosecutors have been convicted of prosecutorial misconduct before. I even provided a link to one such case in my previous post.

Either way, I think whole talk about evidence is a bit of a red hearing since the retrial was not ordered on the grounds that new evidence was discovered, but rather due to an appeal by the prosecution.

If you bothered to read my previous post, you would know that it is not only that. The prosecutor must, ex officio, meaning as part of his fucking job, take into account all factors that are in the defendant's favor. Not simply maximize chances of getting a conviction. No cherrypicking the evidence, no leaving anything out. Defense lawyers are under no such obligation to furnish the prosecutor with information unfavorable to their client's case (unless withholding that information itself would be criminal, and wrt that, statutes in the different countries may vary and the attorney-client privilege is also in play). So the deck is already somewhat stacked in the defendant's favor.

This does not stack the deck in the defendant's favor because, as Thanos pointed out, the prosecutor is the one primarily responsible for gathering up evidence in the first place and has professional investigators at his disposal whilst the defendant does not.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 3&start=50

BS. The prosecutor has professional investigators at his disposal in every inquisitorial system, the defence has not. That is no argument against the system being any less fair.

PS: The defence can always hire their own detectives and get reimbursed later on if they can show the expenses to be necessary in inquisitorial systems. The same is AFAIK true for Italy.

[Thanas]

Yet another person who did not watch the recommended evidence and misunderstands the system. Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times.

[stormthebeaches]

Let us look at the evidence. Neither she nor her boyfriend gave consistent or reliable Alibis for the time of the murder. She lied to the police. SHE ADMITTED SHE WAS AT THE CRIME SCENE. She falsely accused somebody else of the murder. Her statements were bad. She was nervous when taking fingerprints and had several breakdowns. She later claimed the police had abused her (no evidence for that).

Things need to be taken into context. She was being aggressively interrogated for several days. She claims that she was denied a lawyer, and that the police abused her. The police deny this. Who is telling the truth here? Unfortunately we have no way of knowing because the interview where she made her confession was not recorded (I'm pretty certain this is illegal under Italian law).

Now for the article you sent us:

evidence of her DNA on the alleged murder weapon. In a bizarre ruling, the trial court held that Ms. Knox's admission could not be used against her, but that her false accusation could form the basis of a separate crime that the Italians call "calumny." The appeals court then threw out the DNA evidence (for technical forensic reasons) and acquitted Ms. Knox of the murder charges.

The "murder weapon" was too large to fit into the stab wounds and was too large to match the blade imprint found in the room. Not only that, the DNA samples were too small to get any reliable reading. In fact, when the knife was retested during the retrial it came up negative for Meredith's DNA. This was already mentioned earlier in the thread.

I shall leave an article from the Guardian about how much of a farce this case is:

The Italian justice system has pulled off an astonishing and unenviable feat: finding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty of murder – for the second time – without a shred of evidence to substantiate the verdict.

This case, so long and tortured and so unsatisfactory to many, seems destined to go down not just as a breathtaking miscarriage of justice, but one that raises serious doubts about Italy’s ability to mete out criminal justice based on factual verification and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consider: the appeals court that in 2011 found Knox and Sollecito not guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher and set them free after four years in prison made clear that almost every pillar of evidence mounted against them had collapsed. A court-ordered reappraisal of the forensic evidence completely dismantled the prosecution’s claims about the purported murder weapon, refuted the contention that Sollecito’s DNA was on Kercher’s torn bra strap, and made clear there were no physical traces of either defendant in the room where the murder took place.

Nothing, in other words, tied them to the crime except for theories and conjecture unsupported by actual evidence. By contrast, the DNA of Rudy Guede, the Ivorian-born drifter now serving a 16-year sentence for the murder, was all over the crime scene.

The high court justices who threw out the first appeal and ordered a new trial last March did so not because it had doubts about the forensic reappraisal, but rather because, in their view, the appeals court had focused too much on the shortcomings of individual pieces of evidence instead of examining the case “as a whole”. This alone was a deeply disconcerting line of argument.

The high court was convinced, even without proof, that Meredith Kercher had died as a result of a multi-person sex game gone wrong and said a new trial must take this into account. Enter Alessandro Crini, the lead prosecutor in the latest appeal, who did his best to follow the high court’s directions but could not make the sex-game theory stick.

Instead, Crini came up with an entirely new scenario, unheard in any previous court proceedings going back to 2008, in which he envisioned Knox and Kercher arguing over an unflushed toilet and then somehow allowing the argument to escalate to the point where Knox pulled an eight-inch kitchen knife from her purse and Sollecito plunged his pocket knife into her neck. Guede’s role, Crini claimed, was limited to “satisfying himself in barbarous fashion” – in other words, seeking sexual gratification while the murder took place in front of him.

The kitchen knife has been tested repeatedly and it is now agreed by all parties that Kercher’s DNA was not on it. Sollecito’s penknife, meanwhile, was never seriously considered to be a factor until Crini suddenly decided it was—again, without a shred of forensic evidence. The prosecution had nothing to place Knox or Sollecito in the house on the night of the murder, much less in Kercher’s room. And it had no motive to offer beyond the ludicrous notion – also unproven -- that Knox was moved to homicidal rage because Kercher accused her of being messy around the house, and Sollecito was willing to go along with the crime out of love for her.

Somehow – we won’t know the reasoning for another three months -- the Florence appeals court took this nonsense seriously enough to find Knox and Sollecito guilty and sentence them to 28-and-a-half years and 25 years respectively. The case will now return to the high court, which must confirm the sentences before they take effect. The future certainly looks grim for the defendants, especially for Sollecito who is in Italy and has been ordered to surrender his passport. Knox, who is in the US, will most likely avoid having to return to prison in Italy but she can never go back there and remains mired in legal costs and liabilities.

A case that began as tragedy and turned swiftly to farce under the glare of the international media spotlight has thus taken on new tragic overtones. It boils down to an Italian justice system more interested in saving face than in looking at the evidence. In another judicial environment, the focus might be on the multiple pieces of evidence presented in court by the Perugia police and by the original prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, which fell apart on closer scrutiny; on the fact that Mignini was fighting off criminal charges of prosecutorial misconduct when he mounted the original case; on the fact that Sollecito was put in solitary confinement for six months solely on the basis of the blood-stained print of a shoe that was later demonstrated not to be his; or on the fact that chief homicide detective on the case, Monica Napoleoni, has since been removed from her job on suspicion that she abused her position to try to intimidate her ex-husband in a child custody dispute.

Those who believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty have often complained that the memory of the crime victim, Meredith Kercher, has been lost in the media shuffle. The real scandal, though, is the way the entire Italian judicial system has itself tarnished Kercher’s memory by chasing phantoms and needlessly tormenting two wholly innocent young people, all because it won’t admit that it blew the case from the start.

I would like to add that the Guardian is a British newspaper before anyone mentions about American bias.

And finally, the interpretation of all the evidence from a "she is guilty" point of view does make sense as presented.

Well, if your going to do that then its only fair that I should post a link to a pro innocent website.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/

[Thanas]

If Dershovitz claims the evidence is enough to convict then it is certainly enough for her to go to trial. I also trust Dershovitz more on this than the Guardian, who I note makes no mention of the inconsistencies in her defence.

[Mr. Coffee]

Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times.

Amen to that, brother. Also, welcome to my sig line.

[Thanas]

Let us look at the evidence. Neither she nor her boyfriend gave consistent or reliable Alibis for the time of the murder. She lied to the police. SHE ADMITTED SHE WAS AT THE CRIME SCENE. She falsely accused somebody else of the murder. Her statements were bad. She was nervous when taking fingerprints and had several breakdowns. She later claimed the police had abused her (no evidence for that).

Things need to be taken into context. She was being aggressively interrogated for several days. She claims that she was denied a lawyer, and that the police abused her. The police deny this. Who is telling the truth here? Unfortunately we have no way of knowing because the interview where she made her confession was not recorded (I'm pretty certain this is illegal under Italian law).

She was not aggressively interrogated. She was allowed to leave multiple times and reported back of her own will. She was not denied a lawyer, she herself did not want one when asked. She was not abused.

These are all facts stated in the articles I linked to.

[stormthebeaches]

If Dershovitz claims the evidence is enough to convict then it is certainly enough for her to go to trial.

Did Dershovitz really claim that? Looks to me like he was briefly summing up the reason for her being convicted again rather than saying that he agreed with it. His article is focused more on the legal issues behind an extraction from America to Italy.

I also trust Dershovitz more on this than the Guardian, who I note makes no mention of the inconsistencies in her defence.

And Dershovitz makes no mention of the fact that none of Knox's DNA was found in Meredith's room and the prosecution's absurd theory that she was able to clean up her own DNA without any special equipment whilst leaving Rudy Guede's intact.

She was not aggressively interrogated. She was allowed to leave multiple times and reported back of her own will.

For the first few days, in the final day (when she confessed), the police turned up the heat and conducted a round the clock interrogation with at least twelve police officers.

She was not denied a lawyer, she herself did not want one when asked. She was not abused.

These are all facts stated in the articles I linked to.

As I mentioned earlier we have two conflicting stories from Knox and the Italian police about what happened. Since the interrogation was not recorded (pretty certain this is illegal under Italian law) we have no way of knowing what really happened.

[Thanas]

If Dershovitz claims the evidence is enough to convict then it is certainly enough for her to go to trial.

Did Dershovitz really claim that? Looks to me like he was briefly summing up the reason for her being convicted again rather than saying that he agreed with it. His article is focused more on the legal issues behind an extraction from America to Italy.

He did so in the video, stating even further that if this were in the USA she would be facing life in prison or death row.

As I mentioned earlier we have two conflicting stories from Knox and the Italian police about what happened. Since the interrogation was not recorded (pretty certain this is illegal under Italian law) we have no way of knowing what really happened.

I don't believe her one word, not after she made the false accusations.

[Kitsune]

To put things in simple terms. . . .
Lets say we have a crime scene with three people
Is there any cases where the evidence of two of the three were cleaned from the room while leaving a ton of evidence of the third
Can it actually be even done? If it cannot be done, which I don't think it can be, I think it is case closed of innocent.

[stormthebeaches]

He did so in the video, stating even further that if this were in the USA she would be facing life in prison or death row.

I did not watch that video. I apologize.

Having watched it I can now say that the five things he lists as evidence against Knox in that video is weak. The first three things he lists (falsely accusing someone of the crime, creating a false alibi, admitting to being at the scene of the crime) can be put down to possible police intimidation in a questionable interview that we have been discussing.

The fourth thing, that multiple people had to commit the murder, does nothing to prove that it was her. Even if Rudy Guede had an accomplice to the murder it is still up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

The fifth thing he mentions (Rudy Guede said that she helped him do it) is laughable. Rudy Guede originally claimed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not present and changed his story for a lighter prison sentence.

As for his comments about her being in prison or on death row if she was in America, if that is true than America's legal system is very backward (I am not American).

I don't believe her one word, not after she made the false accusations.

Isn't this circular logic? You don't believe her because she made false confessions, even though she might have made those false confessions because of police pressure that you do not believe happened because she made false confessions?


Anyway, its late where I am and I'm going to bed. I'll continue this conversation tomorrow.

[Kitsune]

To put things in simple terms. . . .
Lets say we have a crime scene with three people. Edit: Specifically I mean a crime scene with lots of blood involved.
Is there any cases where the evidence of two of the three were cleaned from the room while leaving a ton of evidence of the third
Can it actually be even done? If it cannot be done, which I don't think it can be, I think it is case closed of innocent.